Rehabilitation of Offenders

An item in the Metro has prompted some thoughts on the position of ex-offenders in education and elsewhere. The item, which does not appear to be on-line, was to my mind a bit scare-mongering since it mentioned pedophiles, someone with a conviction of assaulting a child and another with a conviction for causing death by reckless driving were seeking to work with children.

The first point to be made is that these applicants were weeded out by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) which suggests that they are doing their job properly.

A second point, made by a letter writer in today’s edition, is that criminals sometimes reform and society can help facilitate that by allowing ex-offenders to seek legitimate employment. To an extent, this already happens; the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act allows for some convictions to become “spent” after a period of six months to ten years, depending on the penalty imposed. A penalty greater than a jail sentence of 30 months can never become spent. There are, however, exceptions and any job involving working with children is one such.

I am going to be controversial here and suggest that this should not always be the case and indeed that some convictions which currently result in applicants being weeded out should not always do so. The issue should be whether or not the applicant is likely to re-offend, which is the rationale behind the ROA – if an offender keeps on the straight and narrow for a period of time after conviction it seems reasonable to assume that s/he has reformed. This seems particularly likely for a one-off offender.

I am sure at this point somebody is thinking “OMG! He wants paedos to work in schools!!” Far from it; please note I wrote “The issue should be whether or not the applicant is likely to re-offend…” and my understanding (though bear in mind that I am not a psychologist or criminologist) is that paedophiles never truly reform – they may not re-offend but they are always going to be tempted so the only way to stop them re-offending is to eliminate temptation by keeping them away from children. So, in my view, convicted child-sex offenders should never be allowed to work with children.

Next on the Metro scare list was the applicant with a conviction for assault on a child. Without knowing the circumstances leading up to this particular conviction I cannot express any opinion on the liklihood of re-offending; the circumstances leading to this conviction could be possibly be recreated in the classroom or they may have been such that they are never likely to be repeated. Such a case should be considered on the particular circumstances.

Finally, the applicant with a conviction of causing death by dangerous driving. This killing must have been accidental otherwise s/he would have been convicted of manslaughter or murder. Hence, as far as I can see, s/he is no more a threat to children than anyone else and should not have been automatically excluded.

In my view, the exceptions to the ROA should be reformed – rather than a blanket ban on the non-revealing of spent convictions, only certain crimes relevent to the profession concerned should be excluded from the ROA. I have concentrated on education here because that is where I work but I am sure similar arguments could be made for other professions covered by the Exceptions Order.


Tags: ,

2 Responses to “Rehabilitation of Offenders”

  1. christopherstacey Says:

    Hi Kelvin,

    Thanks for this post. It was an interesting read.

    I don’t agree with every element (particularly the view that paedophiles never truly reform – that’s quite a sweeping statement if ever I’ve heard one!).

    However, I do absolutely agree with your last paragraph. The issue with CRB checks in particular is that the exemption from the ROA is absolute. i.e. once a position is exempt from the ROA, somebody’s entire criminal record is disclosed, regardless of how ‘relevant’ it is.

    This is something that I’ve been involved in through my work with Sunita Mason, as an expert panel member which submitted its views to the Home Secretary. This particularly focused on ‘filtering’ old and minor convictions, so for example, a caution for a certain type of offence, after x number of years, would no longer be disclosed on a standard or enhanced check.

    However, a further element is assessing ‘relevancy’ when establishing whether positions should be exempt from the ROA. So, for financial positions, you can understand why the disclose of spent financial crimes may take place. For work with children, you can understand why offences against children may be disclosed.

    It sounds simple, but when you begin to look at it in detail, its fraught with difficulty, particularly when aiming for an automated process.

    Unfortunately, the Government have little appetite for reforming the exceptions order (as proved in their response to Sunita Masons latest report; her recommendation regarding eligibility was the only one to be directly rejected).

    As a result, whilst we may see the long-needed reductions in the disclosure periods of “unspent” convictions, it will remain the case that a vast majority of employment provisions are exempt from this legislation, and somebody’s entire criminal record will continue to be disclosed.

  2. kelvinthroop Says:

    Thanks for the comments.

    I’m prepared to concede that my understanding on the ability of paedophiles may be wrong. As I say, I’m not a psychologist or criminoligist and am aware that I might be coming across a bit “Brass Eye”. You know, talking Nonce Sense!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: